Someone mentioned in another area that too many are interested in race issues. I hear lots of non-scientific comments from both sides: the racists and anti-racists. The racists' arguments are almost all supernatural: blue/blonde/white tone combination are mother natures work of art; all white people are as smart as Isaac Newton; all white people have Isaac Newton brains but apparently the Jews have taken control of their collective brains (a paradoxal claim: if whites are that smart, then surely they can think for themselves and not have any other group control them); all white people would now have multiple phDs in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, and neuroscience if not for the all powerful "you know who's" conspiring to make then all all get drunk and watch tv everyday; that the white race must be pure to be a true Aryan race - all whites should be genetically scanned and if as much as .1 percent "non-white genes" are found, he or she must be sent to Africa, etc. Very religious stuff.

I hear supernatural claims from the other side as well: all the non-whites that are doing worse than whites are doing so because the entire white race get together and have secret meetings to find ways to subjugate these non-Whites (known as Critical Race Theory). Only white people are evil and only them own slaves and only them do genocide and all their technology was stolen from colored people and that science is a white conspiracy made to make non-whites seem inferior, etc.

So I think it requires an outside person to look at things objectively: like a Chinese dude for example: me:D

So, I found a collection of different races of scientists who all want to cut out all the bias and political stuff and discuss pure science as it relates to race. these scientists have their debates and data-sharing at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/e-l/ Anyone can join. but any non-pure scientific commentary is not allowed. Only data, no subjectivity or bias.

I think this is one reason why so many forum owners are very hesitant to allow ethnic debates: there is too much bias, emotion, and "mean-spiritness." But if all text was written in pure scientific data format, most moderators would not even be smart enough to understand it:D

P.S. One member of the above mentioned discussion list is the Jewish Professor John Glad:

http://www.whatwemaybe.org/
John Glad is a retired professor of Russian studies, having taught at Rutgers University, the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Maryland. He is also the former Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, D.C. A Guggenheim grant recipient, he is the author, editor, or translator of twenty books, some of which have been honored in the American Book Awards. Future Human Evolution is part of his long-standing work on behalf of human rights, in this case of future generations.

I skipped past all of the scientific data, looking for proposed practical solutions to the problem (I'm sure you'd agree that all of the enlightenment in the world isn't much use without real-world application).

Here's one:

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/caseforeugenics.html

If the retarded were given sufficient cash or other incentives to adopt permanent birth control, mental retardation could be cut by approximately 1/3 in just one generation.
Does this person live in the real world? Who in their right (albeit retarded) mind is going to accept cash in exchange for relinquishing the ability to have children? My guess is: a small minority, ie not enough to have any significant impact.

Tell me, Charles: when all the debate is over and eugenicists have won the argument... what do they propose to do in the aftermath of the victory?

More illusions of a perfect society.

No scientific commentary?

It is telling that even pre-literate farmers and herders were well aware of the workings of eugenics for tens of thousands of years and used such things to produce better crops and better animals over the long generations.

Truly: If it has worked since time immemorial, why can it not be used for human benefit? Or even a simple recognition of the fact that genetic improvement is possible?

No scientific commentary?
Why would there be? I'm not a scientist. Care to answer my question?

Here is what my country is doing right now:

http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

Prof. Lynn is convinced, however, that an Asian country—most likely China—will soon institute a mandatory ES program for its population, and that the resulting improvement in its gene pool will tip the international balance of power decisively in its favor. Attitudes in China radically differ from those in the West. Chinese law already requires sterilization of mental retardates and those with genetic illnesses. Prenatal testing of fetuses is mandatory, and defectives must be aborted. No one with mental illness, venereal disease, or hepatitis may marry.

In the mid-1990s, a poll-taker asked Chinese and Western doctors the following question: Should there be mandatory sterilization for a single, blind woman on public welfare who has already had three children by three different men, all of whom are absent from the household? Only five percent of Western doctors but 82 percent of Chinese doctors said “yes.”

Now that socialism is discredited, Prof. Lynn thinks the Chinese will fill the ideological void with eugenics. He predicts it will become the first, full-fledged eugenic state: all 12-year-old girls will be fitted with contraceptives, only approved couples will be permitted to have children, and ES will be used for all births. Psychopathy and genetic diseases will be eliminated, and IQ will stabilize at the theoretical maximum of about 200 in six or seven generations. Licensing parents will seem just as reasonable as licensing drivers.

Prof. Lynn predicts that in the short run, China’s rulers will clone themselves. In most cases this will mean talent and ability are passed on to the next generation, and it will make it easier for the oligarchs to pass on power to people they can trust—their own twins.


Prof. Lynn’s best guess at a timetable is that ES will be perfected and in obligatory use in China within ten years. Twenty years later there will be the first generation of ES adults, and 20 years after that, half the working population will have come from selected embryos. In 50 years, therefore, China will be the world’s most formidable power.

In the meantime, Prof. Lynn predicts that the United States will have continued to decline because of dysgenic fertility and dysgenic immigration. He says the country may break up into warring ethnic enclaves, but “however the details of the decline of the United States work out, it will forfeit its position as the leading world economic, scientific, and military power, and eventually cease to be a major force in global politics.”

He expects Europe to maintain its influence a little longer, because is has fewer non-white immigrants, but it will be no match for a racially homogeneous, eugenically bred China. China will eventually dominate the globe and run it like a colonial empire. In certain provinces, it might impose ES on the natives, but in places like Africa, which do not have the infrastructure for ES, it would be more likely to impose “robust classical eugenics.”

What are we to make of these predictions? Geneticists appear to agree that it is only a matter of time before ES is perfected. It is also true that Chinese have a deep racial patriotism that drives their desire for hegemony (see book review, Feb. 2001). This, together with their penchant for ruthless social engineering and appreciation of population genetics, makes Prof. Lynn’s predictions entirely believable. Eugenics makes a strong case for the view that unless the West has the will to act upon the advice of one of its own 19th century geniuses, whites can well look forward to serfdom under Oriental masters.

Why would there be? I'm not a scientist.

I am not a Professional scientist either. But according to my world view, non-professional scientists should also discuss issues using scientific data. If they can't, they should learn how to.

It is telling that even pre-literate farmers and herders were well aware of the workings of eugenics for tens of thousands of years and used such things to produce better crops and better animals over the long generations.

Truly: If it has worked since time immemorial, why can it not be used for human benefit? Or even a simple recognition of the fact that genetic improvement is possible?

Ancient Spartans used to breed for physical strength: it worked quite well. I prefer though that they bred for intelligence as well, instead of only desiring to distroy Athens.

Prof. Lynn predicts that in the short run, China’s rulers will clone themselves. In most cases this will mean talent and ability are passed on to the next generation, and it will make it easier for the oligarchs to pass on power to people they can trust—their own twins.
Clone yourself and pass on your inheritance to your twin!
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n119/lead-paint/071.gif

Psychopathy and genetic diseases will be eliminated, and IQ will stabilize at the theoretical maximum of about 200 in six or seven generations.
Sounds most promising. Pol Pot clearly had the wrong idea in eliminating the intellectual elite. He should have started from the bottom up. Anything else would be tyranny.

Charles Wong:

Yes, intelligence would be prefered. Although both strength, intelligence, and various other traits together should be encouraged to be bred together if possible, rather than simply individually. A superior human being amongst all the races would be encouraged to develop if across the world people were able to implement this.

I have read some interesting data that the higher average IQ amongst the Jews is directly related to the encourgement of intelligence men to have large families. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, rabbis, et cetera, all were told to "be fruitful and multiply". On the other hand, Europeans have suffered from 1,800 years of many of her great figures not breeding. Few, if any, of the great Western figures had children, including Newton.

I prefer to think about good trait selection in eugenics as weeding out deleterious genes/traits rather than for selecting good traits. Get rid of genes that cause people to have IQs that are lower than 100, weak muscles, bad people skills, sociopathic tendencies, brittle bones, immune system deficiencies--anything that's obviously undesirable to the individual and that person's society. Not necessarily selecting genes that cause people to have IQs of 200, super strong muscles, super immune systems. That could cause too much homogenization and perhaps too much unpredictability.

Just get rid of the overtly bad traits--like what dog breeders do.

Truly: If it has worked since time immemorial, why can it not be used for human benefit?
they can . . . with their gonads, by natural means.

Just get rid of the overtly bad traits--like what dog breeders do.
Let's just put the weak dogs down.

Let's just put the weak dogs down.

Nope, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about not letting the weak dogs degenerate the gene pool; this can be done without putting them down.

Similarly, we could pay people to have them sterilized. The government would pay men and women $1,000 to give them a vasectomy or tie their tubes. Then all the poor people around the country would instantly become $1,000 dollars richer. And they would stop degenerating the gene pool. Doesn't involve anything that could be considered inhumane. After all, nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. They don't have to do it if they don't want to.

I agree. And the really brilliant thing about it is that most poor people are too intellectually retarded to realise that self-imposed sterility has a cash value (yes, everything has a cash value - everything) way in excess of $1,000. Inhumane? God, no.

I wrote a long message about this topic in another thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1203018#post1203018

If you're extremely poor, it likely doesn't matter whether or not you realize its cash/societal value.

Dog breeders have not been very sucessful at weeding out bad tendencies.

Get rid of genes that cause people to have IQs that are lower than 100, weak muscles, bad people skills, sociopathic tendencies, brittle bones, immune system deficiencies--anything that's obviously undesirable to the individual and that person's society.

This idea is deeply flawed. Einstien was both extremely intelligent, and had bad people skills. Genes aren't codes for one particular thing, they have complex effects. I think the gene for sickle cell anemia also protects against malaria. The body makes comprimises, what may benefit a youthful body may become deliterious in old age.

Dog breeders have not been very sucessful at weeding out bad tendencies.
Depends on the breeder.

This idea is deeply flawed. Einstien was both extremely intelligent, and had bad people skills. Genes aren't codes for one particular thing, they have complex effects. I think the gene for sickle cell anemia also protects against malaria. The body makes comprimises, what may benefit a youthful body may become deliterious in old age.

I agree that the science needs work. The genetic blueprint of the body's layout isn't created the way the blueprint for man-made machines are. Genes are selected for their competence in their immediate environment--depending on their phenotypic functions and how they get along with their fellow genes. I really doubt that it's put together in a way that makes sense. It's just put together in a way that works and that's something we certainly need to consider.

Advocates of human eugenics are flawed human beings.

They're intellectually deficient in that they fail to realise that all previous attempts at large-scale social-engineering have ended in disaster. Witness Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, China's Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's Cambodia. Catastrophes on an unimaginable scale.

They're psychologically-flawed too, in that they think these things can be discussed calmly, dispassionately, without a moral component - like studying bugs under a glass. They lack empathy. They lack any understanding of what it means to be human. They fail to understand that our flaws are part of our humanity and that overcoming them is how we develop as human beings.

They're prime candidates for their own procedures. Sterilisation is the only answer.

No scientific commentary?

Sure,

It is all grade A bollocks. Nobody knows shit about human evolution or development on this kind of level. Anyone who pretends they do is just an idiot.

Anyone who pretends to know what is best for the human species is an idiot. Nobody knows. Well, more accurately, there is no such thing as the best for the human species. A certain percentage of retardation isn't going to burden the species in any way, because nature does not care about these things. They are just genes present in certain frequencies, and if necessary these frequencies will change.

By themselves.

I skipped past all of the scientific data, looking for proposed practical solutions to the problem (I'm sure you'd agree that all of the enlightenment in the world isn't much use without real-world application).

Here's one:

Does this person live in the real world? Who in their right (albeit retarded) mind is going to accept cash in exchange for relinquishing the ability to have children? My guess is: a small minority, ie not enough to have any significant impact.

Tell me, Charles: when all the debate is over and eugenicists have won the argument... what do they propose to do in the aftermath of the victory?


Actually that idea could work, the only problem is, retardness is not a gene, it's downs syndrome. Also telling someone to not have children does nothing at all, wouldnt it be better to pair them up with a genius if they are to have children? Or, lets suppose it's a female, if theres sperm banks why not just ban retarded people from donating sperm?

Everyone donating sperm should take a psychological exam and then you'll solve these problems, or at least take a step toward it. I think finally the best solution of all, is to have children, but have more precise selection and control over the genes that are activated. I think the best way to avoid retarded babies is to simply figure out what causes downs syndrome, and then fix it while the baby is still in the womb. I think with stem cells, and the control we have over genes now, downs syndrome and any other disease can be weeded out at the fetus level if we know what genes cause it.

If we must have standards for who can have kids, and while I don't entirely agree with it, I do understand why it could be neccessary. It should be based on a license, and each person should have a license for 1 kid, unless they get a degree and then make it 2, and if they get a Phd then make it 3, and so on.

If someone is a violent criminal, you can strip them of their license to have children. If someone is a child molestor, you can strip them of their license to have children. It's not like we need more children when we have children in the third world who need to be adopted, and no I do not advocate that we let criminals adopt, I'm just saying that if we do have a quota on how many kids a person can have, it should be based on some type of psychological exam, and education level, also on criminality and the amount of violent crimes they commit. It's not in any of our best interest to breed more violent criminals if we can help it. Also what better way to deter violent crime than to threaten to strip a person of their license to have kids, while prison might not work, that might actually work.

I think it's an extreme measure, I'd hope people can learn to more intellegently select a mate, but it seems we might not have people smart enough to select intelligently, as people seem to select only on appearance.

I have read some interesting data that the higher average IQ amongst the Jews is directly related to the encourgement of intelligence men to have large families. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, rabbis, et cetera, all were told to "be fruitful and multiply". On the other hand, Europeans have suffered from 1,800 years of many of her great figures not breeding. Few, if any, of the great Western figures had children, including Newton.

The evolution of intelligence

Natural genius?
Jun 2nd 2005
From The Economist print edition

The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past
Corbis - Getty Images
THE idea that some ethnic groups may, on average, be more intelligent than others is one of those hypotheses that dare not speak its name. But Gregory Cochran, a noted scientific iconoclast, is prepared to say it anyway. He is that rare bird, a scientist who works independently of any institution. He helped popularise the idea that some diseases not previously thought to have a bacterial cause were actually infections, which ruffled many scientific feathers when it was first suggested. And more controversially still, he has suggested that homosexuality is caused by an infection.

Even he, however, might tremble at the thought of what he is about to do. Together with Jason Hardy and Henry Harpending, of the University of Utah, he is publishing, in a forthcoming edition of the Journal of Biosocial Science, a paper which not only suggests that one group of humanity is more intelligent than the others, but explains the process that has brought this about. The group in question are Ashkenazi Jews. The process is natural selection.

[ . . . ]

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638

Ask the right questions first:

Why would you want more intelligent people?

Here is what my country is doing right now:

http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

I think this weakens the Chinese gene pool. Do you know why?
Because while even in Einstiens family there were retards in the family line, maybe less of them, but just one retard and sterilization would have wiped out the whole line. This is actually bad for the gene pool because sterilization never works to strengthen a gene pool.

The way to strengthen a gene pool is to mate two geniuses, not to sterilize the stupid, or the diseased, because every family has it's stupid or diseased, and if there is a one child policy, well, I'd think sterilization is the most violent way to weaken the gene pool.

Also China has way too many boys and not enough girls. How is that good for a gene pool? Is it not better to have a lot less boys, and a lot more sperm banks so girls can select that one smart genius and all have his baby?

There are many ways to look at this, but steralization is like chopping a persons penis off for being ugly, it's a barbaric way and it's not proven to work. So lets be simple and follow your logic, why not simply steralize all who cannot get through college with a Phd?

Well if you follow that logic, most of your population will be wiped out, you'll have a much less diverse gene pool, and the result will be people who are better, but the hidden cost will be a major loss in gene diversity which slows evolution down because you won't have a lot of variety in the type of intelligences that you'll have.

If you want it to be scientific, you should read up the theory on multiple intelligences. When you remove gene diversity because one a child is retarded (which is not a gene by the way), you also remove the genes of everyone in the entire family line who was not retarded. This means you'll lose genius to avoid one retarded person reproducing, thats kinda silly.

So it's not that retarded people shouldnt reproduce, it's more that they should not be allowed to reproduced with other retarded people. I'm more concerned with the violent criminal types, you can have retarded people, who just arent geniuses, but you need these people to do labor. You also need Phds, and you need art geniuses, music geniuses, writers and so on.

Take Stephen Hawking as a perfect example, your country would have Sterilized him, how smart would that be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

As far as different ethnic groups having greater or less intelligences. Let's look at the theory of multiple intelligences.

Gardner's Categories of Intelligence

[edit] Thought

[edit] Linguistic

To do with words, spoken or written. People with verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling stories, and memorizing words and dates. They tend to learn best by reading, taking notes, and listening to lectures, and via discussion and debate. They are also frequently skilled at explaining, teaching, and oration or persuasive speaking. Those with verbal-linguistic intelligence learn foreign languages very easily as they have high verbal memory and recall and an ability to understand and manipulate syntax and structure.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include writers, politicians, and teachers.

[edit] Logical-mathematical

To do with logic, abstractions, inductive and deductive reasoning, and numbers. While it is often assumed that those with this intelligence naturally excel in mathematics, chess, computer programming, and other logical or numerical activities, a more accurate definition places emphasis less on traditional mathematical ability and more reasoning capabilities, abstract pattern recognition, scientific thinking and investigation, and the ability to perform complex calculations.

Those who automatically correlate this intelligence with skill in mathematics criticize this intelligence by arguing that logical ability is often more strongly correlated with verbal rather than mathematical ability: for example, the old Analytic section of the GRE correlated more strongly with the Verbal section than the Mathematical. One possibility is that formal, symbolic logic, and strict logic games are under the command of mathematical intelligence, while skills as fallacy hunting, argument construction, etc. are under the command of verbal intelligence.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include scientists, mathematicians, lawyers, doctors, and philosophers.

[edit] Sensate

[edit] Spatial

To do with vision and spatial judgment. People with strong visual-spatial intelligence are typically very good at visualizing and mentally manipulating objects. They have a strong visual memory and are often artistically inclined. Those with visual-spatial intelligence also generally have a very good sense of direction and may also have very good hand-eye coordination, although this is normally seen as a characteristic of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

Some critics point out the high correlation between the spatial and mathematical abilities, which seems to disprove the clear separation of the intelligences as Gardner theorizes. A thorough understanding of the two intelligences precludes this criticism, however, as the two intelligences do not precisely conform to the definitions of visual and mathematical abilities. Although they may share certain characteristics, they are easily distinguished by several factors, and there are many with strong logical-mathematical intelligence and weak visual-spatial, and vice versa.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include artists, engineers, architects, and chess players.

[edit] Bodily-kinesthetic

To do with movement and doing. In this category, people are generally adept at physical activities such as sports or dance and often prefer activities which utilize movement. They may enjoy acting or performing, and in general they are good at building and making things. They often learn best by physically doing something, rather than reading or hearing about it. Those with strong bodily-kinesthetic intelligence seem to use what might be termed muscle memory; i.e., they remember things through their body, rather than through words (verbal memory) or images (visual memory).

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include athletes, dancers, actors, comedians, builders, and artisans.

[edit] Musical

To do with rhythm, music, and hearing. Those who have a high level of musical-rhythmic intelligence display greater sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. They normally have good pitch and may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. Since there is a strong aural component to this intelligence, those who are strongest in it may learn best via lecture. In addition, they will often use songs or rhythms to learn and memorize information, and may work best with music playing.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include musicians, singers, conductors, and composers.

[edit] Naturalistic

To do with nature, nurturing, and classification. This is the newest of the intelligences and is not as widely accepted as the original seven. Those with it are said to have greater sensitivity to nature and their place within it, the ability to nurture and grow things, and greater ease in caring for, taming, and interacting with animals. They are also good at recognizing and classifying different species.

The theory behind this intelligence is often criticized, much like the spiritual or existential intelligence (see below), as it is seen by many is not indicative of an intelligence but rather an interest.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include scientists, naturalists, conservationists, gardeners, and farmers.

[edit] Communicational

[edit] Interpersonal

To do with interaction with others. People in this category are usually extroverts and are characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments, and motivations and their ability to cooperate in order to work as a group. They communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They typically learn best by working with others and often enjoy discussion and debate.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include politicians, managers, social workers, and diplomats.

[edit] Intrapersonal

To do with oneself. Those who are strongest in this intelligence are typically introverts and prefer to work alone. They are usually highly self-aware and capable of understanding their own emotions, goals, and motivations. They often have an affinity for thought-based pursuits such as philosophy. They learn best when allowed to concentrate on the subject by themselves. There is often a high level of perfectionism associated with this intelligence.

Careers which suit those with this intelligence include philosophers, psychologists, theologians, and writers.

It is argued that a concept such as intrapersonal intelligence is vague and unmeasurable, and hence not a proper study for psychology. Others question whether intrapersonal intelligence can really be considered an intelligence, and claim that it instead should be considered more a personality trait or a set of desires .

[edit] Other Intelligences

Three other intelligences have been suggested by Gardner and his colleagues: naturalistic, spiritual or existential, and moral. The naturalistic intelligence was included in 1999, but the other two have little empirical evidence to back them up, and are therefore not included in the canonical eight intelligences.

[edit] Relationship to education

Traditionally schools have almost exclusively emphasized the development of logical intelligence and linguistic intelligence (mainly reading and writing). While many students function well in this environment, there are those who do not. Gardner's theory argues that students will be better served by a broader vision of education, wherein teachers use different methodologies, exercises, and activities to reach all students, not just those who excel at linguistic and logical intelligence.

Many teachers see the theory as simple common sense, validating what they already know: that students learn in different ways. The widespread criticism of the theory from the academic psychology community is in striking contrast to the positive response of many educators in the US and around the world.

The practical application of the theory of multiple intelligences varies widely. It runs the gamut from a teacher who, when confronted with a student having difficulties, uses a different approach to teach the material, to an entire school using MI as a framework. In general, those who subscribe to the theory strive to provide opportunities for their students to use and develop all the different intelligences, not just the few at which they naturally excel.

A Harvard-led study of 41 schools using the theory came to the conclusion that in these schools there was "a culture of hard work, respect, and caring; a faculty that collaborated and learned from each other; classrooms that engaged students through constrained but meaningful choices, and a sharp focus on enabling students to produce high-quality work." (Kornhaber, "Psychometric Superiority? Check Your Facts," 2004)

Of the schools implementing Gardner's theory, the most well-known is New City School, in St. Louis, MO, which has been using the theory since 1988. The school's teachers have produced two books for teachers, Celebrating Multiple Intelligences and Succeeding With Multiple Intelligences and the principal, Thomas Hoerr, has written Becoming a Multiple Intelligences School as well as many articles on the practical applications of the theory. The school has also hosted four conferences, each attracting over 200 educators from around the world and remains a valuable resource for teachers interested in implementing the theory in their own classrooms.

Criticisms of the theory's application in schools come in two major forms. First, opponents argue that the theory may lead to a sort of intellectual relativism, wherein students' failures are explained away as being an example of a different kind of intelligence, not a lesser one. As a result, there are those in the Gifted and Talented community who have criticized Gardner's theory, because any support of the idea that all children are equally gifted, just in different ways, might lead to the reduction or broadening of Gifted and Talented programs. Gardner himself has said that he does not believe his theory will have this type of consequence for gifted programs, and that he never intended his theory to affirm that all people are equally gifted, but rather that the definition of intelligence was too narrow to encompass all types of intelligence.

The second major criticism is that it is fallacious to say that someone may be good in one intelligence but not in another. Every multiple domain IQ test ever normed (Weschler, Wais, Standford Binet, Dr Hoeflin’s Mega test) have shown that all the areas tested are correlated. This trend is also shown in tests like the GRE, the SAT, the PSAT, the ACT, etc., on every one of which each section correlates to a high degree with the others; the correlation rarely drops below 0.6 on the -1 to 1 scale. Hence, it has been argued that persons who excel in one type of intelligence usually excel in several others; and many times in all. This criticism is largely based on a misunderstanding of the theory: people do not have one intelligence or another, but varying levels of ability in all the intelligences, and therefore someone who excels in one is perfectly capable of excelling in another, or in all. In addition, Gardner believes that most activities require the use of several intelligences at once: e.g., the conductor of a symphony clearly uses musical intelligence, but also uses interpersonal to communicate and direct the group and bodily-kinesthetic to use his hands and body in order to conduct.

So lets see, if we look at this, there are some things that Jews are not intelligent at, at least not as intelligent as other ethnic groups, this is assuming you can actually rate ethnic groups by intelligence.

How many Jewish artists are there? Musicians? Dancers? Actors? What is the impact that Jews have on culture?

Yes Jews are intelligent, but Jewish intelligence is focused mostly on sciences and academics, and maybe some practical applications. Einstien is an example of a brilliant Jewish scientist. Tesla however, was not Jewish and was also brilliant.

The Chinese are intelligent, but so far there has not been a Chinese Tesla or Einstien. So it's complicated, there is not 1 type of intelligence.
What about emotional intelligence? You can be a scientist and have no emotional intelligence whatsoever. What about math intelligence? Most people who can read and write well, aren't good at math, and most people who are good at math, can't read and write well, it's very rare for a person to be good at both.

So because there is no general intelligence, when you try to rate groups of people, you have to rate on all the different types of intelligence. As far as I can see, the different cultures all focused on different topics of study. Europeans in specific focused on the sciences, went into space, focused on space technology, focused on things such as this, invented weapons first, like the gun.

China invented gun powder and not the gun.Printing was invented in Korea if I remember right. The drum was invented in Africa if I remember right, along with most math and geometry.

So obviously there is genius everywhere, the question is, why did one group focus on one thing and another group on something else, and instead of trying to give a westernized intelligence test, what I think we should do is give tests for multiple types of intelligence. If you do this, then you'll have more precise statistics as to strengths and weaknesses between individuals, while a general IQ test tells you nothing more than a number, when you have a complete test, which includes all the types of intelligence known to exist, and a psychological examination, then you'll have a more complete picture. In general, some people are just more creative and innovative than others, do we test creative intelligence? The current IQ test does not, but obviously we should.

http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1

In the mid-1990s, a poll-taker asked Chinese and Western doctors the following question: Should there be mandatory sterilization for a single, blind woman on public welfare who has already had three children by three different men, all of whom are absent from the household? Only five percent of Western doctors but 82 percent of Chinese doctors said “yes.”

Only 5 percent of Western doctors said yes. It seems that Western people have adopted a very maladaptive moral system that will cause them to destruct.

Compare this with 82% of Chinese doctors that said yes.

http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1



Only 5 percent of Western doctors said yes. It seems that Western people have adopted a very maladaptive moral system that will cause them to destruct.

Compare this with 82% of Chinese doctors that said yes.

Ok I actually agree with that quote. If someone has had 3 kids by 3 different fathers, and is on welfare, fine I can agree in principle. However I think it's a slippery slope and would rather just remove the persons license. I think the license idea is better, but yeah if a person has beyond the 3 kid limit and is on welfare, I think most reasonable Americans could agree that if there is ever a case for sterilization thats one of those cases.

In general though, it depends on the fathers too, it's not all on the woman. So instead of sterilization, which you seem to prefer. Why not simply require all women on welfare, who have more than 3 kids, to get an abortion or lose their benefits. Let the government pay for the abortion, and if they have the 4th child they lose all benefits.

That's the easiest way. You still don't have to sterilize as you can punish. If you favor sterilization it's simply because you like that method, if you want people to have less children, there are plenty of ways to do that without sterilization. If you go with sterilization, you don't have the option of ever being wrong, it's too irrreversable to be a good idea unless the person is an ex-murderer or rapist, then I'm all for sterilizing them.

I'm not really worried about random women with 3 kids. I'm more worried about rapists and murderers. I'm worried about violent criminals.

In the UK our no. 1 snooker player - an astonishingly-talented young man - is the son of a violent criminal. On what authority would you deny him that destiny? If you ever find yourself in jail for protecting your property or family from thieves or attackers, can I personally sterilise you - or do you think it's possible that jail might rehabilitate you?

The time will come when technological implants that enhance our various abilities are commonplace, but that time isn't now. Put away your needles.

In fact the government should stimulate women to have as many children as possible. The future if the nation depends on it. Your pension depends on it.

In Finland you get paid a lot to have a child. Nobody asks who the father is or of the mother is on welfare. Because welfare isn't something dirty and disgusting, but a means to support the people who need support.

An old Finnish saying went a bit like this: one child for the mother, one for the father, and one for the nation.

However, since the intelligent and rich of the nation are neglecting their duty: to make children, it makes more sense to euthanize them and redistribute their wealth among that actually do.

Rich and intelligent peopler are just too selfish for any society.

http://www.amren.com/0111issue/0111issue.htm#article1



Only 5 percent of Western doctors said yes. It seems that Western people have adopted a very maladaptive moral system that will cause them to destruct.

Compare this with 82% of Chinese doctors that said yes.

The above example is clearly a case of hereditary insanity. Without any attempt to even define what is good for society they label women on welfare as bad for society. In fact the only bad thing about women on welfare in this respect is that apparently the poster thinks they are bad for society because he feels they are a burden to HIS wallet. And clearly the poster in question is NOT society. He wants to deprive society of its economic engine. Young people.

Clearly people like this should be sterilized and forbidden to have children. They possess a selfish streak that probably is genetic in nature, and if not, I will with pleasure perform the nutcracking myself. No decent society can be build on people like this.

We should indeed pay people to have children - but only those that SHOULD be having children. INtelligent, strong people, with stable relationships, should get benefits for having as many children as possible, whereas we should discourage women such as the welfare slut.

We should indeed pay people to have children - but only those that SHOULD be having children. INtelligent, strong people, with stable relationships, should get benefits for having as many children as possible, whereas we should discourage women such as the welfare slut.


Welfare slut?

Could you please do the world a favour and smash your nutsack between two bricks.

Eugenics is walking a razor-thin line.

First of all, the world is over-populated if you beleive that everyone is entitled to a standard of living that middle-class and above Americans enjoy. In fact, it's over populated if you said the same based on european middle class. We do not have enough energy to redistribute resources equally to everyone everywhere in the world. And I would argue that we do not have that responsibility either.

I will not advocate actively killing people to reduce the world's population. I do not have a problem with people dying as a consequence of their own behavior - you exceed the carrying capacity of your environment, you pay the fine, up to and including death.

Statistically, your genome will have the greatest chance of survival if you have the most descendants scattered as widely as possible. Survival of the fittest will be determined by who is left alive after population reduction. By the way, eugenics was a fine concept; but flawed in implementation. Who decides what is a desireable trait or not? MY definition of a desireable trait is one that increases a person's capability to survive; often by reducing the resources necessary to survive (disease immunity or faster healing requiring less medical care) or by expanding the range of usable resources (ability to consume new types of food - such as cow's milk, or tolerate moderate amounts of what to other people would be poisons in foods.)

Understand that the ability to survive is dependent on the environment the organism lives in, and the traits the organism carries that allow it to survive. Change the environment, and you change the ideal trait set. By the way, raise the complexity of the environment, and you raise the need for intelligence to figure it out. Simple environments don't require high intelligence, keep it simple and safe enough and it won't require greater strength or agility either.

We can, and have, imposed an artificial environment with the 'modern', western lifestyle. Economically successful people have a greater opportunity for reproductive episodes. However, on the whole, economically successful people are choosing to have fewer children, and so are not selected in this environment. Ergo, they are failures in the game of natural selection. They realize this (either consciously or unconsciously) and redirect their competiveness for genetic supremacy by attempting to impose quotas on reproduction on those lower on the socio-economic ladder.

Morality sets and religions are other, artificial environments societies impose on their members, and attempt to impose on others. We are seeing it today with the competition between the Islam ideology and the rest of the world. The winner of this competion, if there is one, will be the 'most fit' to survive in the current socio-economic world environment.

Races came about due to several factors. Lack of movement between physical locations and breeding groups caused selection of physical traits most suitable for the physical environments lived in. Close breeding between related families fixed those physical traits. Some of those traits were neutral, and ended up fixed, but not selected for. Blacks, whites, orientals, jews, mexicans, indians, etc. all were created by this process. Each is 'superior' to the other within their natural physical environments. However, the process did not continue long enough to result in speciation. With modern, extensive, high-speed travel, we are seeing a re-blending, a hybridization, of the various human breeds back into a single species with a wider range of traits than the original members of the species possessed. It's a slow process and members of various breeds or families are still trying to gain the advantage. Which is why we have wars and genocidal purges.

You earn your right to survival every day. Old people have to fight for their right just like everyone else. If they stored up resources for when they are infirm or retired; then they have earned their right in advance, at least until they run out. If you run out, and you can't earn the right anymore, then you forfit that right to life. (By the way, a large family (or society) willing to take care of you in your old age is another form of storing up resources.)

Eugenics is walking a razor-thin line....I welcome you here, we badly need more thoughful people like you and less of the quick "one line quipts" Not only is yours by far he best first post I have seen, it is among the better period. I look forwared to seeing more, althought I expect we will disagree at times.

Charles, I think you're seeing the problem here: personal pretense gets in the way of doing what is right and scientific. This is why the ethnic debate is so muddled.

I'd like to add another:
http://www.pan-nationalism.org/

As philosophy is a science -- no, it's the MASTER SCIENCE of science and logic themselves.

In the UK our no. 1 snooker player - an astonishingly-talented young man - is the son of a violent criminal.

What's so important about snooker? No system is perfect, but to balance one snooker player against a society inundated in crime is insane.

I find most modern people afflicted with moral pretense, not reasoning. How does your post differ?

What's so important about snooker? No system is perfect, but to balance one snooker player against a society inundated in crime is insane.

I find most modern people afflicted with moral pretense, not reasoning. How does your post differ?

Rather a complete moron like you would prefer to base a system of genocide on pseudoscience.

Advocates of human eugenics are flawed human beings.

They're intellectually deficient in that they fail to realise that all previous attempts at large-scale social-engineering have ended in disaster. Witness Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, China's Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's Cambodia. Catastrophes on an unimaginable scale.

They're psychologically-flawed too, in that they think these things can be discussed calmly, dispassionately, without a moral component - like studying bugs under a glass. They lack empathy. They lack any understanding of what it means to be human. They fail to understand that our flaws are part of our humanity and that overcoming them is how we develop as human beings.

They're prime candidates for their own procedures. Sterilisation is the only answer.


simulation, ca 1900

Advocates of human flight (ie the Wright Brothers) are flawed human beings.

They're intellectually deficient in that they fail to realise that all previous attempts at human flight have ended in disaster. Catastrophes on an unimaginable scale.

Eugenics isn't science.

Eugenics isn't science.Certainly never has been, but it all depends on your definition whether or not it could be.

It certainly is possible to reduce some traits in the gene pool which are clearly related to single defective genes, but as to "improving the gene pool" that requires knowing the future stress that humans will be subjected too - clearly impossible.

Unfortunately, in the past even its possible applications have been of very little importance compared to the application with no scientific basis which is best described as "We should make the next generation more like me."

It is telling that even pre-literate farmers and herders were well aware of the workings of eugenics for tens of thousands of years and used such things to produce better crops and better animals over the long generations.

Truly: If it has worked since time immemorial, why can it not be used for human benefit? Or even a simple recognition of the fact that genetic improvement is possible?

Unfortunately, 10,000 years of selective breeding has resulted in dangerous homogenization. Our crops are incredibly susectible to disease and parasites. We're in a constant battle against nature to keep our crops growing, and we seem to be losing.

Certainly never has been, but it all depends on your definition whether or not it could be.

It certainly is possible to reduce some traits in the gene pool which are clearly related to single defective genes, but as to "improving the gene pool" that requires knowing the future stress that humans will be subjected too - clearly impossible.

Unfortunately, in the past even its possible applications have been of very little importance compared to the application with no scientific basis which is best described as "We should make the next generation more like me."

What are those single gene traits, and are they defective enough to warrant slaughter?

And what of the traits that handicap people, but because of their handicap, they end up excelling?

Genetics are such a piss-poor measure of potential, it's ludicrous to suggest that you exterminate people based on a cultural interpretation of something you don't have a fucking clue about.

And the loss to productivity through slaughtering the part of your work force that actually produces stuff is asinine.

It'd be like killing chinks cause their small dicks don't make women happy. Who would make shoes and cheap plastic trinkets for us?

Wow, I can't believe I have not been banned as yet with all my posts deleted: this forum must be the only one in existance that supports Intellectual Freedom. Let the world know about this forum! Tell your friends, Professors/teachers, random strangers, big-foot, and space aliens!

Why is eugenics "not science"? Is genetics "not science"? LOL

Many people here are using the straw man argument "I don't agree that we should exterminate all "inferiors." Please correct your argumental mistake.

Regards.

Why is eugenics "not science"? Is genetics "not science"? LOL

By the same argument, "Health Management" would not be "real science" as well because it deals with improving health, just like eugenics deals with improving genes.

Why is eugenics "not science"? Is genetics "not science"? LOL

What gene(s) cause "intelligence"? Where are they located on the genome? What else are they linked to? How can this intelligence be measured? How does this intelligence benefit the individual?

What gene(s) cause "intelligence"? Where are they located on the genome? What else are they linked to? How can this intelligence be measured? How does this intelligence benefit the individual?

Massive data archive that will answer all your questions: http://www.neoeugenics.com/

Massive data archive that will answer all your questions: http://www.neoeugenics.com/

Please give me one article that definitively shows what chromosome intelligence is on.

Remember, you're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Professor Glad writes:

http://www.whatwemaybe.org/

Evolutionary selection has been radically relaxed in the human species as a result of the development of civilization, science in general, and medicine in particular. While these advances have hugely benefited current populations, they have to a significant degree released the species from the biological process which created it and maintains its viability. Formerly, natural selection took place largely as a result of differential mortality, but now that most people survive well beyond their child bearing years, selection is determined largely by differential fertility. Aside from genetic illnesses, this new selection is also characterized by a negative correlation between fertility and intelligence–the core of eugenic concern for over a century.


Assuming the above is true, then not practicing eugenics will cause Western society to "de-evolve" back into cavemen with all current science, technology, and civilization lost. But China will evolve towards Neitzche's Supermen since they do practice eugenics. So the choice is yours, Western Man.

Please give me one article that definitively shows what chromosome intelligence is on.

Remember, you're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.


Here is a very data-intensive eugenics debate from the past: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453 All your questions were answered in this previous debate.

Assuming the above is true, then not practicing eugenics will cause Western society to "de-evolve" back into cavemen with all current science, technology, and civilization lost. But China will evolve towards Neitzche's Supermen since they do practice eugenics. So the choice is yours, Western Man.

Fast food and bad TV seem to be evidence this de-evolution is underway.

http://www.freedomofchoice.com/devo/

In the UK our no. 1 snooker player - an astonishingly-talented young man - is the son of a violent criminal. On what authority would you deny him that destiny? If you ever find yourself in jail for protecting your property or family from thieves or attackers, can I personally sterilise you - or do you think it's possible that jail might rehabilitate you?

The time will come when technological implants that enhance our various abilities are commonplace, but that time isn't now. Put away your needles.

Arent you the same person who wants to make it a crime to buy a gun legally?

A violent criminal is not the same as someone who applies violence legally. In the case of self defense, it's not the same as first degree murder. I specifically said murder and rape, not manslaughter.

In fact the government should stimulate women to have as many children as possible. The future if the nation depends on it. Your pension depends on it.

In Finland you get paid a lot to have a child. Nobody asks who the father is or of the mother is on welfare. Because welfare isn't something dirty and disgusting, but a means to support the people who need support.

An old Finnish saying went a bit like this: one child for the mother, one for the father, and one for the nation.

However, since the intelligent and rich of the nation are neglecting their duty: to make children, it makes more sense to euthanize them and redistribute their wealth among that actually do.

Rich and intelligent peopler are just too selfish for any society.



The above example is clearly a case of hereditary insanity. Without any attempt to even define what is good for society they label women on welfare as bad for society. In fact the only bad thing about women on welfare in this respect is that apparently the poster thinks they are bad for society because he feels they are a burden to HIS wallet. And clearly the poster in question is NOT society. He wants to deprive society of its economic engine. Young people.

Clearly people like this should be sterilized and forbidden to have children. They possess a selfish streak that probably is genetic in nature, and if not, I will with pleasure perform the nutcracking myself. No decent society can be build on people like this.


WE don't need so many damn kids. We have more kids than ever right now and we treat our kids like crap. We are bad global parents and you want us to have more kids?

It's fine if people have kids but we should not be encouraging anyone to have more kids. More kids = cannon fodder for the wars that their parents will create, and more suffering for kids who will grow up without parents. Maybe we should advocate that parents adopt some of the kids we already have, but of course thats not going to happen because people are still thinking that the world operates at the national state level.

It's a global world now. As a response we need to become a global community. The first thing we need to do is figure out how to take care of the billions of kids we have. Let's see, you have millions of kids without parents in Africa, go adopt one like Madonna is doing. Second, you have millions of kids in your own country who have no parents, or who have irresponsible parents. The adoption system needs tweaking.

You also have to plan, where these kids are going to go and what these kids are going to be able to do with their lives. Do we have a world currently set up for 12 billion kids? No we don't. Our world is so inefficient now that it's only set up for about 2 billion people, the rest are living in extreme poverty.

So before we can have growth of human capital we have to actually take advantage of the 6 billion we already have. When we can provide a job to all 6 billion, then we can discuss growth, but if we can't provide a job to all 6 billion people, what do we need more people than jobs for? Our system is simply inefficient, it's inefficient because we don't want to make it efficient.

Sterilization is the lazy way to deal with it, and it does not solve anything, because the problem is that Capitalism is simply inefficient. An efficient system would have full employement world wide, a job for anyone who wants one, a global currency, or at least a Euro, Amero/Dollar, Africo, Sino currency or something. At some point we will need to create a global currency standard. At some point we will have to create the types of intellectual labor that can provide a job anywhere at anytime. As a species we need to focus or die, and I don't think sterilization will solve anything. I think it would be better to have gene therapy than sterilization, I think it would be better if we took the more difficult but also the more thorough approach, which is to fully understand ourselves, to the level that we do not need to sterilize, otherwise eventually the human population will grow to the same levels again and it's going to happen over and over a gain.

So it's simple, we need controlled and precise growth, we need to figure out how to create enough jobs, to solve our problems. One problem we have is the environment, an obvious problem but it's going to take a lot of labor to solve it. Another problem is space travel, it's going to take a lot of people to develop the space industry. Another is the problem of managing all these people and making our systems more efficient and people friendly. I don't think anything can be solved simply by having less people if you keep the same inefficiency, the same broken systems, the same flawed concepts like race, the same gender biases, etc. Our culture is part of our problem. Unless we suddenly begin to love ourselves, having more people who will be born and taught to hate each other, only guarentees more wars in the future. When population increases, there is always a certain percentage of aggressives, who will bully, and become violent, and go on to commit acts of organized violence and organized crime.

So it's a fact that this happens whnever population grows. Our problem as a species is that we have not figured out how to manage our aggression. We have not figured out how to deal with organized crime.

Human's don't even track the aggressiveness of the global population, but it's something which should be tracked. Are we becoming more aggressive or less aggressive? When you just deal with numbers, or when you just deal with intelligent and stupid, etc, you don't really have anything which can predict future behavior. The best way to predict future behavior is based on motivators like emotions.

Arent you the same person who wants to make it a crime to buy a gun legally?
How can it be a crime to buy something legally? I'd never say anything so dumb.
A violent criminal is not the same as someone who applies violence legally. In the case of self defense, it's not the same as first degree murder.
Tell that to Tony Martin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm).

Not that any of that has anything to do with anything. I was just questioning your right to decide who may have children and who may not. You present yourself as the final arbiter on these things. Qualifications for the role?
It's a global world now.
What was it before?

Many people here are using the straw man argument "I don't agree that we should exterminate all "inferiors." Please correct your argumental mistake.

Regards.

The arguement is you have no rational methology for deciding who is superior and inferior. You are going by what your culture values.

The problem with this is, your culture is flawed like all the others. You have to think about this in a way that's not so culturally biased.

Instead of ranking humans in a heirarchy of superior and inferior, why don't you simply look at the amount of damage the individual human does. A retarded person for example, might still be capable of working a job. An autistic person still might be capable of doing a lot. A person in a wheel chair might be able to accomplish a lot. Look at Bill Gates, he wears glasses, would you have sterlized him for that?

Your problem is that you only look at genes and you ignore individuals. Like I said, you'd have sterilized Stephen Hawking, because you'd have considered him inferior and retarded.

I'm an intellectual, but I think intelligence and stupidity are not the only two genes that matter, yes they matter, but if you have a bunch of people who are intelligent in only one way, you weaken your gene pool. You might end up with a nation of scientists, and not have anyone to create art, or music, or movies, or to invent anything new. This is what happens when you erase genes from the gene pool (sterilization). I think it's better to go back to arranged marriages and simply pair up the geniuses, and give the geniuses licenses to have as many kids as they want, than to let you decide who gets sterilized and who doesnt. You are not a computer, you are a flawed human just like all the others, why should anyone trust you to come to the right conclusion?

How can it be a crime to buy something legally? I'd never say anything so dumb.

Tell that to Tony Martin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/717511.stm).

Not that any of that has anything to do with anything. I was just questioning your right to decide who may have children and who may not. You present yourself as the final arbiter on these things. Qualifications for the role?

What was it before?


I don't think I should decide. I think a computer should calculate and decide. I don't think any human is intelligent enough to make decisions such as that. If the computer says we need more scientists so we can go to mars, that makes sense, but if we humans decide we want more artists because our quality of life is suffering, that also makes sense. What I'm saying is, in a world of only scientists, only one type of intelligence, it would be a really fucking boring place, there would be no good music, no good movies, no good art to look at, no new words or new languages to speak, there would be no culture, it would be just people solving math problems, doing calculations, memorizing stuff, and going to sleep, only to wake up the next day and do it all over again.

So we do need our share of artists, of scientists, etc, we know there is not one form of intelligence, otherwise Einstien would have been a great actor, musician, artist, writer, designer, athelete etc.

Einstien was a terrible athelete, he was deemed inferior, and not allowed to be drafted. If we lived in a world where physics were not invented, they would have sterilized Einstien because he wasnt a good artist or athelete. Do you see my point? Culture decides this instead of science, and thats the problem with eugenics/sterilization.

I think trans-humanism is better, it actually lets individuals decide their fate somewhat, everyone can have a child, no one would have to be sterilized, so you'd get to keep the genetic diversity, and simply de-activate down-syndrome, obsesity, etc.

who is superior and inferior. You are going by what your culture values.

Correct, I vote according to what I value, just like you vote according to what you value: I am sure you vote for politicians who say that they will keep murder, forced rape, and armed robbery illegal: these things are not "wrong" in some absolute sense, rather your personal values give you a feeling of it being wrong. So what's your point?


Instead of ranking humans in a heirarchy of superior and inferior, why don't you simply look at the amount of damage the individual human does.

ANother straw man argument: I have not ranked anyone as "inferior" or "superior." Rather, I stated that I value the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests, and since I value this, I will vote for policians who will support social policy to increase public IQ.

YOur other argument is that we might accidentally sterilize a Beethoven: but as another person mentioned, you have to weight one genius against 20 million retarded persons who will be allowed to reproduce just incase one of them becomes a genius. What will cause more societal problems: everyone having high IQs but one out of many geniuses ends up getting sterilized even though other geniuses were not and end up making tons of contribution minus the one sterilized one; Or, having a society of 100 million average and retarded persons, but one Beethoven who came from the retarded masses?

You are not a computer, you are a flawed human just like all the others, why should anyone trust you to come to the right conclusion?

Why should anyone trust any scientist what so ever? Afterall, scientists, engineers, chemists, architects, physicians, etc. are not computers: so we should thus never make any science based decision from this point on.

Your problem is that you only look at genes and you ignore individuals. Like I said, you'd have sterilized Stephen Hawking, because you'd have considered him inferior and retarded.

MS is not hereditary. It is a late-onset acquired disease or deficiency.

It is not a form of mental retardation.

Lou Gehrig was not retarded, nor is Stephen Hawking.

WE don't need so many damn kids. We have more kids than ever right now and we treat our kids like crap. We are bad global parents and you want us to have more kids?

Welcome to the real world.

All over Europe birthrates are below replenishment level. Populations are crashing and graying. Without young people there is no future. Nobody to pay for the pensioners. Nobody to pay for the infrastructure.

Welcome again to the real world.

The solution, of course, is to let services die and stop importing those who would dilute the country into an unrecognizable cultureless Grey Race.

We gotta plant the seeds of liberalism into the Chinese.

Here is a very data-intensive eugenics debate from the past: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453 All your questions were answered in this previous debate.

I'm sorry. The opinions of people on the internet don't count as a peer reviewed journal. Either stand up and tell me where on the genome intelligence is located, or sit the fuck down.

I'm sorry. The opinions of people on the internet don't count as a peer reviewed journal. Either stand up and tell me where on the genome intelligence is located, or sit the fuck down.

Charles Wong can’t tell you where the intelligence genome is located because he probably isn’t a geneticist, and there are many new things that scientists will have to learn before your questions can be answered. There are many genes that play role in determining how smart a person will be. Some genes control the growth of your neural pathways. Some genes control the release of the various chemicals that makes you feel happy, sad, anxious, relaxed, scared or angry. Some people are naturally happier than other people because they have genetic traits that allow them to function normally in a stressful environment. Why is it that some people are suffering from psychological disorders like depression and PTSD while other people always seem to be happy or at least in a neutral state of mind? Perhaps some people naturally have higher levels of serotonin in their prefrontal cortex. A person’s emotional well-being is very important because stress hormones can severely impair your cognitive abilities. Glucocorticoids can damage the hippocampus.

I think everyone is born with a cognitive potential. Most of us never get the opportunity to reach our full potential; otherwise there would probably be a higher number of so-called geniuses in the world. (Someone with an I.Q above 140) I think most of the geniuses in the world are average people that had the opportunity to reach their full potential because they worked hard or they had access to best education that money could buy.

But there is another group of people within the genius population. There are some people that are born with natural talents. I think some children have genetic traits that can cause them to develop a higher than normal amount of neurons and dendrites in specific areas of their brain. I think it is the reason why some children are able to read and talk fluently by the age of 3, while others may not be able to accomplish this task until 5 or 6. It is the reason why some children are able to master a musical instrument within a few years, while other people may have to practice for a decade or more. I think there is a gene or genes that is responsible for the higher than normal neuron and dendrite growth. Perhaps these genes remain dormant in most people. Some genes are also probably more prevalent in some people. (Ashkenazi Jews, some Orientals, Ect.) It is also likely that there are multiple “genius genes” that are responsible for neural growth in specific areas of the brain. For example, some genes may only affect the Broca’s and Wernicke’s area in your brain. Which could give you the ability to speak 5 or more languages fluently.

Charles Wong can’t tell you where the intelligence genome is located because he probably isn’t a geneticist, and there are many new things that scientists will have to learn before your questions can be answered.

I stopped reading here.

I asked Wong to find me a paper that supports his position with concrete proof, not obviously racist blatherings whose bias puts their information highly suspect at best.

So there's no actual science behind any of this. Just hypotheses without evidence. Now don't you think that it would be important to figure exactly where and what the problems are before you begin to take away people's inalienable rights?

It's interesting that these racists and eugenicists claim they're scientific and that they're proposals have scientific merit, when they don't actually have science to back them up, don't you think?

We gotta plant the seeds of liberalism into the Chinese.

This is what the West is trying: in order to reduce competition from the Chinese, they are trying to genetically/technologically/culturally weaken China by trying to get the Western Marxist media into the country. This is why the Chinese government has banned most Western media and control what websites the public have access too. Chinese government believes that "the end justifies the means," not "the means justifying the end."

Cultural/ethnic unity is one of several prerequisits to becoming a lasting advanced nation. Other requirements are a high IQ average, high conscientiousness, creative thinking personality (open-to-experience), and access to amble raw natural resources. Liberalism denounces all of these prerequisits, so it's in the interest of the West to bring this ideology into China.

Here's what I find absurd. Once nano-tech becomes mainstream race and class will be non-existent. We're a fucking cyborgs why can't you people realize that? The old race and class dogma is only seriously debated by the uninformed. Seriously, look around you, and tell me how many machines do you see? Lets go back 100 years, how many machines did man have contact with? Very few, what I'm saying is machines are increasingly becomming more intimate. We have a symbiotic relationship with machines. The intimacy of machines are only gonig to increase.

This is what the West is trying: in order to reduce competition from the Chinese, they are trying to genetically/technologically/culturally weaken China by trying to get the Western Marxist media into the country. This is why the Chinese government has banned most Western media and control what websites the public have access too. Chinese government believes that "the end justifies the means," not "the means justifying the end."

Cultural/ethnic unity is one of several prerequisits to becoming a lasting advanced nation. Other requirements are a high IQ average, high conscientiousness, creative thinking personality (open-to-experience), and access to amble raw natural resources. Liberalism denounces all of these prerequisits, so it's in the interest of the West to bring this ideology into China.

Here's the difference between the west and the east. The east especially china doesn't give flying fuck about it's citizens. If you look at China's history it's been a tortue chamber for the working class citizens. Very little rights, very little respect, forced to work without food until death. You thought the pollution in Southern Cal was bad... HA China makes Southern Cal look like the Garden of Eden. The only reason why China is becomming a world power is because they're exploiting their people beyond immagination. Nor do they care about human rights, state sponsored organ extraction, mass pollution, the sars coverup, and running over student protesters with Tanks live on national TV.. Christ! When you're willing to sacrafice your people to the degree that they do, ofcourse you're going to be a world power. For them being so smart they sure are the most brutal industrialized nation on the planet.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=china

http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision_id=2410&item_id=2409

Correct, I vote according to what I value, just like you vote according to what you value: I am sure you vote for politicians who say that they will keep murder, forced rape, and armed robbery illegal: these things are not "wrong" in some absolute sense, rather your personal values give you a feeling of it being wrong. So what's your point?

Torture is absolutely wrong, can you give a logical reason or rational purpose behind it to prove it's not absolutely wrong? Government exists to manage the people, if it lets people rape and murder then why should government exist at all? Thats anarchy.



ANother straw man argument: I have not ranked anyone as "inferior" or "superior." Rather, I stated that I value the type of intelligence measured by IQ tests, and since I value this, I will vote for policians who will support social policy to increase public IQ.

But IQ has no meaning, it has no basis in reality, it's a number. It's like increasing GDP, it's just a number. It means the brain is active but it does not calculate talent, or usefulness.

YOur other argument is that we might accidentally sterilize a Beethoven: but as another person mentioned, you have to weight one genius against 20 million retarded persons who will be allowed to reproduce just incase one of them becomes a genius.

That's absolutely ridiculous. 20 million retarded people? you are saying it's 20 million to 1? Where did you get this extremely high number? There could be Beethovens right now that we don't take advantage of due to our own stupidity and inability to recognize talent. You just don't get it.

What will cause more societal problems: everyone having high IQs but one out of many geniuses ends up getting sterilized even though other geniuses were not and end up making tons of contribution minus the one sterilized one;

A high IQ does not make you a genius, it does not mean you'll be good at anything in life, it does not mean you are talented. A high IQ simply means you scored well on the test. I don't think you should judge the worth of a person based on one test, thats ridiculously stupid.

Or, having a society of 100 million average and retarded persons, but one Beethoven who came from the retarded masses?

Most people with high IQ's are average too, it's not like people with high IQ's are all Einstiens. Also you don't even recognize that artistic talent exists, you refuse to even give different types of intelligence tests that would recognize a Bach or Beethoven, your IQ test only captures academic intelligence, book smarts. It does not capture artistic or imaginative intelligence. Your IQ test therefore is biaseds toward certain brain/neuro types and not others, making it irrelevent.

Why should anyone trust any scientist what so ever? Afterall, scientists, engineers, chemists, architects, physicians, etc. are not computers: so we should thus never make any science based decision from this point on.

You should not trust any human like that. You should be able to crunch the data in the computer yourself. I don't trust one test to judge all people, I think it would be a stupid way to live if you trust the test makers with your life. What next? sterilizing people who don't get all A's in school? Don't you realize that genius comes in all forms and not the same form?

Maybe you think that IQ test, which tests the myth of "general" intelligence, will matter, but I don't think general anything can tell you how good someone will be at something. You cannot know someone will be the next Bach by testing their general intelligence, you have to test their musical intelligence.

You cannot know someone will be good at sports, or good at anything physical without testing for that type of intellgience.

You cannot know how smart a person will be emotionally, without testing emotional intelligence.

So you do realize, your world will generate emotionally retarded, uncreative scientists, who get good grades, who are obedient, and who build whatever they are told to build.

Problem is that you won't have much innovative if you do it like this. Innovative comes from people who think outside the box. Often people who are "crazy" do a lot of the innovating. Einstien was very smart in some ways and very stupid in others, and if you judged him based on how well rounded he was as a human he would be considered slightly retarded. Hell, most people who seem to accomplish something, have some sorta flaw, do you know any flawless successful people?

Take Michael Jackson, he is obviously flawed, but does this mean he is not a musician and dance genius? You might think he is a bit crazy and eccentric, but he has talent. What about comedy? How would you have anyone to make comedy is you don't have a measurement for that talent?

Do you see, that IQ alone, at least one kind of IQ, cannot figure out all the human traits and rate them? It's going to take more than one IQ test, hell it's going to take more than just an IQ test, it's going to take a complete psychological exam.

And while you say IQ test is more important than if someone has a tendency to be a serial rapist or serial murderer, your society would keep the smartest highest IQ'd serial murderers and rapists alive, I guess so they can more intelligently do it. Tell me, what are the benefits of a society, that breeds intelligence only for self destructive purposes, and why should I support IQ which does not even calculate all the different types of intelligence? What if a lot of people with high IQ's are jerks, do you even take this into account or do you suddenly like the person just because they have a high IQ? What if you have a lot of jerks who disobey all their orders, drop out of school, and start criminal organizations, BECAUSE they have a high IQ?

Maybe people with a higher IQ will be better criminals, and be able to rob you and be more likely to get away with it. IQ tells you nothing about crminality.

The solution, of course, is to let services die and stop importing those who would dilute the country into an unrecognizable cultureless Grey Race.

Hey I'm an American grey, I think the grey race is the best idea.
Why? Because I don't think race IS culture, you do. There is culture online, but what is the race of your computer?

The way to spot a racist, racist people have an obsession with generalizing, and averages. Whenever there is a general this, or an average that, it's usually the kind of statistics or number that can be used to promote a racist agenda.

We can say for example that Americans are generally greedy as a race, and that the average IQ in America is lower than most other countries, and use this information to say for example, that China or Europe is better.

But I guess people don't see that when you generalize, and when you rely on averages and numbers that you can manipulate these statistics in any way to prove any point. China could have the highest IQ in the world and the most people, but it does not change the fact that America is the most creative country on earth. If we tested creative intelligence, well, there is a reason why most things were invented in America, it's because Americans are creative as hell. Americans rebel a lot too, and work hard.

So it all depends on what you test for. If we test for greed, America would definately rank at the bottom of the test. If we test for IQ America would be somewhere in the middle. If we test for innovation, America would be at the top, so obviously whatever it is that Americans are doing with their IQs, it's bringing us computers, and technology of all sorts.

So it's not enough to have a high IQ. It's about how you use your IQ, and it's about which IQ test you take. I don't think general intelligence means anything because on the average test, a person will do good on one subject and bad on another, but the talent is in what they do good in. IQ does not measure talent, it measures raw calculating brain power, which is useless if that brain has no software and no hardware specialization.

It's like judging a CPU based on how many calculatiosn per second it makes, and not by any of the other components, like the L2 cache, or the heat efficiency, or how it actually runs software. Most people who judge computers, they don't judge it based on one number, like the 2ghz being better than 1ghz, because thats not always the case. Sometimes a 1ghz cpu is more powerful than a 2ghz cpu based on the design. This is why when they benchmark CPUs (the IQ test for computers), they don't just give it one test, they test everything, from running games like quake, to word processors, to number crunching, etc.

Why? Because different computers are designed to do different things. A multi-media computer is designed to do multi-media, arts and graphic design, and it's going to have to be tested on that.

Humans are even more specialized than PCs, there are many different types of humans, we arent all going to be number crunching scientists. To give all humans ONE test to decide, would be like giving all computers ONE benchmark to test the speed in ghz of the CPU. It does not work for computers, so it cannot work for people.

Torture is absolutely wrong


Use the Scientific Method to prove this statement. And if you can manage to do this, try using the Scientific Method to prove that prostitution, porn, abortion, masturbation, atheism, Islam, oral sex, etc. is absolutely "wrong" or "right," arguments which have been claimed by various people and generations and leaders.

But IQ has no meaning, it has no basis in reality, it's a number. It's like increasing GDP, it's just a number. It means the brain is active but it does not calculate talent, or usefulness.


Saying that IQ has no meaning because it's a mathematical construct is like saying every single applied mathematical formula has no meaning and therefor should never be used. Do you see your logical fallacy here? Were you trying to use Gould's "IQ Reification" hypothesis?

A high IQ does not make you a genius, it does not mean you'll be good at anything in life, it does not mean you are talented. A high IQ simply means you scored well on the test. I don't think you should judge the worth of a person based on one test, thats ridiculously stupid.


A high IQ is a prerequisite for genius. BAsically, most of the research positively correlate IQ with life success: school grades, college grades, career choice, socio-economic status, law-abidedness, marital status, properly raising your offspring. Most of the research shows this. Much of the research has been quoted in the following eugenics debate: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453 It's your choice as to whether you want to go over it or not.

Basically, all your arguments are based on an Mtv education on the human brain. It's not your fault, rather, it's the media that pick and choose what content is politically acceptable.

Some basics: the best measure of the type of intelligence that is required to succeed in a modern technologically advanced nation is IQ tests. It positively correlates very strongly with everything the majority considers as "success": grades, college, wealth, career, family stability, criminal records, etc. No other test, like Emotional Intelligence or Gardners multiple intelligence tests, correlate as strongly. We actually know of many biological correlates of IQ: brain size to body size ratio, speed on nerve conduction, averaged evoked potentials, brain glucose metabolism rate, thickness of mylean sheaths, inspection time (how fast one intakes sensory data), etc. No other "intelligence tests" have found biologica correlates: Gardner et al. have not bothered to even try: they made a hypothesis and never tried to vindicate it. Then the popular media promoted their hypothesis as fact because their egalitarian model is more politically acceptable than the IQ model in inequality.

Okey, so its true that while IQ is very important for genius, it takes other traits to complement this: certain personality traits.

The brain scientists' consensus on personality traits are:

-Introversion versus extroversion
-neuroticism versus emotional stability
-altruism versus tough mindedness
-conscientioness versus non-conscientiousness (crime-prone, selfishness, -recklessness, non-detail oriented, carelessness, lazy/non-ambitious, etc.)
-Conventionality versus open-to-experience.

These traits have a 50% heritability rate.

So, in addition to high IQ, a genius should have high conscientiousness which gives them ambition, motivation, and detail-orientation.

He should also have the "open-to-experience" personality trait as opposed to conventionality so that he seeks new ways of doing things, inventing new things, discovering new things, etc.

I repeat, please go over the cited research data at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453

Cheers!

Use the Scientific Method to prove this statement. And if you can manage to do this, try using the Scientific Method to prove that prostitution, porn, abortion, masturbation, atheism, Islam, oral sex, etc. is absolutely "wrong" or "right," arguments which have been claimed by various people and generations and leaders.

What the hell does sex have to do with torture? Alright, torture is wrong because it's a waste of human capital. Torture is wrong because it's a waste of resources, time, energy, it solves nothing, it rarely accomplishes anything, and it's an emotional act which means it's not based on anything rational.

What is the rational reason, to torture someone? Is torturing good for the economy now? Torture, is like collecting kittens, to stick red hot pins into their body, just to hear them scream in pain. Tell me, what does this accomplish? What do you learn from this? What do you gain from this act?

You are telling me I have to prove why we should do something? No, you should be using scientific method to prove why we SHOULD do something. you don't use science to prove a negative. This would be like using science to try and prove why we shouldnt use scientific method. Or trying to use science to prove why we shouldnt promote human de-evolution. Or trying to use science to prove why we should avoid extinction, or avoid nuclear war, or avoid blowing up the earth just to watch everything die, or any other thought you can think of.

It should be self evident, it's irrational to torture.



Saying that IQ has no meaning because it's a mathematical construct is like saying every single applied mathematical formula has no meaning and therefor should never be used. Do you see your logical fallacy here? Were you trying to use Gould's "IQ Reification" hypothesis?

Formulas are not the same as numbers. Numbers are not real. The only real numbers are the binary of 1 and 0. On and Off. Yes and No. etc. These two numbers give you the ability to program a calculator, but you ignore this because you are too busy playing with numbers to promote the IQ test itself?! Numbers are just symbols, like letters, they have absolutely no meaning. What does 5 mean? Besides being half of 10?


A high IQ is a prerequisite for genius.

Prove that. Prove that musicians all have high IQs. Whats Michael Jacksons IQ? I bet it wasnt even tested. Whats the IQ of Al Pacino, the brilliant actor? Whats the IQ of your average sports hero like Michael Jordan, or your favorite baseball or soccer star?

What is the IQ of Kasparov or Fischer? Are you saying that we can use chess to judge IQ? Of course you won't say that, you'd rather use a number instead which has no meaning in the real world.

So the result is simple, a person can be a genius in one thing, and not a genius "generally", as is the case with most geniuses. The well rounded general genius, I don't really know what that is. I see plenty of intelligent people, I see people from ivy league university and people from ordinary university, besides the differences in the SAT test scores and how they were raised, theres absolutely no differences. Most people do ignorant shit, no matter what their score on the SAT was.

You see people who got high scores on the SAT, who have high IQ's, doing stuff like getting themselves drunk and going for a drive, or drinking themselves to death in the fraturnal environment, or having sex with random people. You see people with high IQ's breaking laws and becoming criminals because they think they can get away with it. You see people with high IQ's, having such low emotional intelligence that they can't maintain friendships or personal relationships for long. You see people with high IQ's, who can't do anything in life except score high on IQ tests and get good grades in school.

Trust me, one test cannot tell you how intelligent a person is. If you think one test, one number, can tell you how successful and how intelligent someone is, you are being a fool. The only way to know how intelligent a person is, is to know how they live their life, how they interact, how their mind works, what their ideas are, to actually talk to them. You cannot replace that with any sorta test, a test cannot judge a person better than you can. Should we give women or men, potential dates, a partnership IQ test to see how they'll do in the relationship? how stupid would it be to do this? Then again I bet you'd agree with that too.

BAsically, most of the research positively correlate IQ with life success: school grades, college grades, career choice, socio-economic status, law-abidedness, marital status, properly raising your offspring.

That's absolutely ridiculous. If you believe life is that simple, good, I want you to make sure all your friends have a high IQ, and ignore character, in fact, I hope you marry a wife with an IQ higher than yours, so when she divorces you, beats you in court and takes all your shit, you can only blame your own stupidity and not the IQ test.

Most of the research shows this. Much of the research has been quoted in the following eugenics debate: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453 It's your choice as to whether you want to go over it or not.

Eugenics is one thing, but this IQ being the most important aspects of a human is not at all related to eugenics. Honestly, try surrounding yourself with high IQ people, just try and see, you'll quickly find out that the people with higher IQ's are not automatically better quality than the people with low IQ's, because it depends on HOW they are intelligent. They might have absolutely no social/emotiona/street/life intelligence. They might only know book knowledge and nothing else, and might be a horrible friend, but their IQ might be 200. Do you want an asshole with a high IQ as a friend or do you want a true friend no matter what the IQ says? Do you even know what social intelligence is?

Basically, all your arguments are based on an Mtv education on the human brain. It's not your fault, rather, it's the media that pick and choose what content is politically acceptable.

I don't even watch MTV. It has nothing to do with politics. It's simple, I don't want to decide who can and cannot be my friend based on a number. I think thats so oversimplified as to be even more ignorant than racism. It's one thing to be racist and judge by appearance, its another to judge everyone by a number. Yes you can take IQ testing into account, but you have to still meet them and talk to them to confirm it, otherwise you are putting blind faith into the test itself and not your own intuition and judgement.

What I'm saying is, sometimes the test can be wrong.


Some basics: the best measure of the type of intelligence that is required to succeed in a modern technologically advanced nation is IQ tests.

Which IQ test? Theres many many of them. There are also personality tests which I think are even more important than IQ tests. What good is brute calculating intelligence if you can't get along with the intelligent jerk?

It positively correlates very strongly with everything the majority considers as "success": grades, college, wealth, career, family stability, criminal records, etc.

Actually, most criminals have a high IQ, they think they are so smart they'll never get caught, and most of the time they are right and don't get caught. Criminality is a sign of high IQ. Only the people with low IQ's get caught. Once again though, the IQ test along does not mean you'll be more likely to be a successful criminal, it simply means you'll be less likely to get caught if you were to go into a life of crime.

No other test, like Emotional Intelligence or Gardners multiple intelligence tests, correlate as strongly.

How do you know? You offer no statistics or data to back any of this up. Emotional intelligence actually is the most important aspect for relationships, if you had common sense you'd have known that much. Different intelligences apply to different things. Someone can have a perfect pitch and perfect audio recall, this person would be able to remember everything you ever told them, and will be able to memorize lectures, and do all sorts of things with this type of intelligence. The IQ test, as far as I know does not test for this.

We actually know of many biological correlates of IQ: brain size to body size ratio, speed on nerve conduction, averaged evoked potentials, brain glucose metabolism rate, thickness of mylean sheaths, inspection time (how fast one intakes sensory data), etc.

You are sexist too. Women have smaller brains than men, is what your neuro-scientists like to say, trying to morph that into the whole men are smarter than women myth. It's not that men are smarter than women, it's a weak generalization. It's more that brain size has nothing to do with brain speed or brain composition. You can have a smaller yet faster brain with more connections. Women are known to be good communicators, and the hypothesis is that this is because women have more connections in this part of their brain because they use it more than men do. So it's simple, brain size is meaningless, and IQ cannot calculate communication ability.

No other "intelligence tests" have found biologica correlates: Gardner et al. have not bothered to even try: they made a hypothesis and never tried to vindicate it. Then the popular media promoted their hypothesis as fact because their egalitarian model is more politically acceptable than the IQ model in inequality.

I understand you, you are one of those guys who believe men are smarter than women.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm


Okey, so its true that while IQ is very important for genius, it takes other traits to complement this: certain personality traits.


The brain scientists' consensus on personality traits are:

-Introversion versus extroversion
-neuroticism versus emotional stability
-altruism versus tough mindedness
-conscientioness versus non-conscientiousness (crime-prone, selfishness, -recklessness, non-detail oriented, carelessness, lazy/non-ambitious, etc.)
-Conventionality versus open-to-experience.

These traits have a 50% heritability rate.

So, in addition to high IQ, a genius should have high conscientiousness which gives them ambition, motivation, and detail-orientation.

I'm not disputing that brain ability is heritable. I'm saying that IQ alone is not enough to map out a persons brain and all it's capabilities. I think that one number or an entire brain is ridiculously simple.


He should also have the "open-to-experience" personality trait as opposed to conventionality so that he seeks new ways of doing things, inventing new things, discovering new things, etc.

Jung has a very accurate personality test. I think it's a very good example of why IQ alone is not so important. You can have a high IQ and have a personality that is just, designed in such a way so that you never get to express yourself or use your IQ on anything but doing puzzles or playing chess games or whatever.

I repeat, please go over the cited research data at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32453

Cheers!

Since you live and die by IQ, here is a site. Take the test, lets see your IQ http://www.iqtest.com/

Here is an interesting thought . . . woops, I mean a thought I personally find interesting, for I cannot scientifically prove that the following thought is interesting by nature: it's a subjective matter:

My ultimate goal is the formation of a completely superior non-organic species that is built for inter-stellar travel and IQ power of One billion trillion plus.

So, it really does not matter what the initial stage of this process is: it can be a bunch of ideal genotypes from a single race, or a bunch of ideal genotypes from different races: any genotype can be transformed into the super-species I desire. Groups like Transtopia.org is very politically incorrect or "racial," but they accept "ideal" members from any race: White, Black, Oriental, Mullato, South-Asian, South-East Asian, Native Indian, etc. Though median characteristics differ between these groups, every group has at least some "ideal" members: plus, there is much gene overlapping between groups: ethnic groups have statistically fuzzy boundries.

But though the above may work on private projects like Transtopia.org, I do think it's not achievable on a national level since ethnic groups as a whole tend to have too many group-interests that differ: it would be too chaotic. It's more practical to work nationally when everyone is similar.

Charles Wong:

What scientific evidence do you have that non-organic species are even a possibility? And why would this be superior to remaining organic?

Charles Wong:

What scientific evidence do you have that non-organic species are even a possibility? And why would this be superior to remaining organic?

Organic matter is easily distroyed on Earth, let alone in space. And it seems too hard to upgrade the brain intelligence of organic people: how can you add more neurons to the brain, plus the constant increase in skull size to accomodate more and more neurons?

But yes, I agree that it's all speculation at the moment: I can't say for sure if we can create human intelligence (called the "g" factor) in lets say silicon for example.

Consider the character "Leutenant Data" from star trek: the next generation. That would be my initial goal: again, it's speculation as to whether this is even possible: but I like to try non-the-less: it gives me something I find interesting to do while waiting to die.

Actual gene manipulation though is currently doable via selective breeding, embryo screening, cloning, and germ-line genetic engineering, and sperm/egg banks where one can choose them based on the profile of the donors.

It is very doable for every race, if they desire, to improve themselves via the currently available methods as I just described. Eugenics need not be "racist," it can be globally altruistic. In fact, many new-age liberals who believe that eugenics is inevitable are now writing books telling us to prepare to make sure this technology is not only reserved for previleged individuals and races, but for everyone via government subsidize and inter-national eugenic assistance for poor countries that cannot afford it. "It's all good" I say.

Charles Wong:

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it is the number of neurons that determines intelligence?

But yes, eugenics as a practical means to improve humanity is certainly available to humanity now and has been, albeit in a diminished capacity, for tens of thousands of years.

Charles Wong:

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it is the number of neurons that determines intelligence?

Yes, I have several professional research data sources. I will go ahead and post excerpts of the relative data and cite the source shortly: it's takes some time to compile everything. Give me a little time . . . I'll do it today or tomorrow.

I'd love to see them. Thank you.

.....I hear supernatural claims from the other side as well: all the non-whites that are doing worse than whites are doing so because the entire white race get together and have secret meetings to find ways to subjugate these non-Whites (known as Critical Race Theory). Only white people are evil and only them own slaves and only them do genocide and all their technology was stolen from colored people and that science is a white conspiracy made to make non-whites seem inferior, etc.....
(laughs). If you look at history, 70% of all the major pillaging and hysteria was started, sponsored, and finished by white industrialists. It’s the reason why people guess that white people are behind a lot of the world's problems and high notes. White people simply control the world, no matter how you try to look at it. But if you ask me a lot of why white people get away with what they do is because they are simply the most fascinating and unique human beings. Whatever white people do or promise they always seem to back it up, and where else are you going to find a group of women with blue eyes and pretty red hair. Tiny factions of Anglo-Franco and Spanish industrialists invaded the Americas some 500 years ago, murdered and oppressed all the Mayan natives and gave them casinos and tax free cigarettes in return. Today these American natives are even trying to live amongst white people. Does Mexico ring a bell? Only white people can get away with such atrocities and ingenious socio-politics. I don't take away anything from white people, they simply are the children of human race.

(laughs). If you look at history, 90% of all the pilaging and hysteria was started, sponsored, and finished by white industrialists. Its the reason why people guess that white people are behind a lot of the world's problems and high notes. White people simply control the world, no matter how you try to look at it. But if you ask me a lot of why white people get away with what they do is because they are simply the most fascinating and unique human beings. Whatever white people do or promise they always seem to back it up, and where else are you going to find a group of women with blue eyes and pretty red hair. Tiny factions of Anglo-Franco and spanish industrialists invaded the Americas some 500 years ago, murdered and oppressed all the Mayan natives and gave them casinos and tax free cigarretes in return. Today these American natives are even trying to live amongst white people. Does Mexico ring a bell? Only white people can get away with such atrocities and ingenius socio-politics. I don't take away anything from white people, they simply are the children of human race.

Now you assume white is a breed, as if all people with the same skin color are decended from pirates and industrialists. Different breeds are different breeds, some people came from the vikings and nomads, some people came from older ancient civilizations such as this one, but in general it's not and never was just one big tent/race. The whole pan-aryanism is a new creation that came about in the last 50 years in respect to World War 2, it did not exist during World War 1.

what are you talking about?

Here is an interesting thought . . . woops, I mean a thought I personally find interesting, for I cannot scientifically prove that the following thought is interesting by nature: it's a subjective matter:

My ultimate goal is the formation of a completely superior non-organic species that is built for inter-stellar travel and IQ power of One billion trillion plus.

So, it really does not matter what the initial stage of this process is: it can be a bunch of ideal genotypes from a single race, or a bunch of ideal genotypes from different races: any genotype can be transformed into the super-species I desire. Groups like Transtopia.org is very politically incorrect or "racial